There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. [...] suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.
Read the whole letter. The following scientist are the signatories of this letter... these are peer reviewed experts in their fields, scientists in the whole sense of the word and not just some lab technicians or assistants. See my detailed essay on the faulty computer models at
http://www.pinecam.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=106244
)
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.[/i]
What motivates a human being to argue for more pollution? Unless you own or work in a coal mine or for an oil company you only have one interest in this debate. To breath clean air. Thats all a normal human being should care about in this "debate". I cannot believe how these big corporate interests and their public relations machines can get little people to go out on the internet and do their dirty work for them? How do they do that!? And if you ask these brain dead drones why they argue against their own self interests here they'll say that.."Ah..oh yeah, I want corporations to do well so they can provide more jobs"...So they don't care about single mothers being able to feed their babies, and they want people without health care coverage to just die, but they care about coal miners in West Virginia!?
You right wing retards think our atmosphere is like the ocean, you think so big that it can handle anything. Well it's not my friends, it's about as thick as a zig zag rolling paper wrapped around a basketball. You know how they always say something is so big that you can see it from space? Amazing! Wow, you can see the great wall of china from space! Thats because space is like 10 F-ing miles away- I can get on my roof and see DIA on a good day and thats 70 miles away.
Vice Lords Common Sense Global Warming LESSON # 1) Our atmosphere is incredibly small, we humans breath air, we don't want to pollute the air
It's like garbage - I think most of us here don't just throw it on the floor in our homes. No, most of us here contain it in a garbage can, we to control it, we regulate our garbage because we don't want to live in it.. Same thing here friends. Doesn't make us communist or socialists..We just don't wanna sh** where we eat
Something The Dog Said wrote: It is time for the Republicans to listen to the American people, rather than continuing to be tools for the corporations and ultra-wealthy.
They are tools...And they've been indoctrinated to think that "more pollution = more jobs"...(It doesn't...but no matter...) It's not really about jobs anyway--It's about more wealth for the polluting industries, but they don't want to admit it...
Carbon dioxide is a pollutant?
And how are you going to force China and India to dial back their economies to reduce pollution? We can't even keep nukes from Iran and North Korea.
And who decided a slight warmup is a bad thing? There are good sides and bad sides to any warmup. Some species will thrive and others will decline.
Do the American people really agree with the global warming lobby? I don't think so, I haven't seen an explosion of support for the Green Party. So maybe the Republican Party is listening to their voters rather than the loser alternative energy corporations/money pits/crony capitalists that Obama sends checks to.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Something The Dog Said wrote: It is time for the Republicans to listen to the American people, rather than continuing to be tools for the corporations and ultra-wealthy.
Well... if you read the article... this wasn't about Republicans. And if you read the list of scientist, this had nothing to do with corporations or the ultra-wealthy. This article was written and endorsed by the sixteen scientist, and the scientist were international in scope (so... can't blame this on the Republicans). What you tried to do was deflect from the science in this article and try to blame this on the GOP, which doesn't work. But what should one expect. These scientist have more intelligence in one little finger than you do in your whole body.
But thanks for trying to keep up. You get a "I Participated" certificate.
Something The Dog Said wrote: It is time for the Republicans to listen to the American people, rather than continuing to be tools for the corporations and ultra-wealthy.
Well... if you read the article... this wasn't about Republicans. And if you read the list of scientist, this had nothing to do with corporations or the ultra-wealthy. This article was written and endorsed by the sixteen scientist, and the scientist were international in scope (so... can't blame this on the Republicans).
Sorry Sh*tforbrains, the "debates" are only in the popular media, not in the scientific literature. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few "organisations" hold non-committal positions
The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
Something The Dog Said wrote: It is time for the Republicans to listen to the American people, rather than continuing to be tools for the corporations and ultra-wealthy.
Well... if you read the article... this wasn't about Republicans. And if you read the list of scientist, this had nothing to do with corporations or the ultra-wealthy. This article was written and endorsed by the sixteen scientist, and the scientist were international in scope (so... can't blame this on the Republicans).
Sorry Sh*tforbrains, the "debates" are only in the popular media, not in the scientific literature. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few "organisations" hold non-committal positions
Like the "Tobacco Institute" "scientists" arguing for years that tobacco was "safe" and "not addictive"...
Like the "American Petroleum Institute" arguing for fossil fuels while doing everything they can to convince the tools that renewables are a waste of resources... ad nauseum...
Don't worry, be happy... Climate Change/Global Warming is a myth...or...if it's true, it's not man-made....or....if it's man-made, there's nothing we can do about it.....therefore....it's a myth... (Kind of like a dog chasing its tail....)
Something The Dog Said wrote: It is time for the Republicans to listen to the American people, rather than continuing to be tools for the corporations and ultra-wealthy.
Well... if you read the article... this wasn't about Republicans. And if you read the list of scientist, this had nothing to do with corporations or the ultra-wealthy. This article was written and endorsed by the sixteen scientist, and the scientist were international in scope (so... can't blame this on the Republicans).
Sorry Sh*tforbrains, the "debates" are only in the popular media, not in the scientific literature. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few "organisations" hold non-committal positions
OK, what are you willing to do to lower your additions to the carbon monoxide levels? Pay $5 more per gallon of gas for your car? Pay $500 more for every vacation flight? How many poor people do you want to deny electricity and heat because they can't afford Al Gore's carbon credits?
Nigeria recently tried to get rid of their subsidies for petrol products and the poor rioted in the streets as food prices and fuel doubled in price.
Good luck with your crusade.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
